|
Defendant
Guerrero's
unopposed motion for extension
of time to file initial brief
Leonard Weinglass
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 11th CIRCUIT
CASE
NO. 01-17176-BB
UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
vs.
ANTONIO
GUERRERO
Defendant.
DEFENDANT
GUERRERO'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE INITIAL BRIEF
 The
Defendant-Appellant, Antonio Guerrero, through
undersigned counsel and pursuant to 11th Cir. Rule
31-2, respectfully requests a thirty (30) d ay
extension of time in which to file Appellant's
initial brief, which is currently due on or before
April 7th, 2003. Appellant's unopposed motion
is based on the following grounds:
1. Appellant, together with four co-defendants, was
convicted after a seven- month trial in the Southern
District of Florida of various conspiracy charges,
including conspiracy to commit espionage. He was
sentenced to life imprisonment and is currently
serving his sentence.
2. This Court had previously granted an extension of
time to April 7, 2003 to all appellants within which
to file their Initial briefs. No other extensions
have been sought.
3. Undersigned counsel did not serve as trial
counsel for Mr. Guerrero. He remains the only
appellate counsel new to the case on appeal, other
counsel having been assigned and representing
their clients since the Fall of 1998. The pretrial
proceedings, actual trial and sentencing occurred
over an extended three year period, culminating in
sentencing hearings in December 2001. The resulting
record is massive (117 volumes of transcript and
nearly 800 documents and exhibits as well as over
1600 docket entries and pre and post trial motions
and sentencing memoranda).
4. My client, Antonio Guerrero, is incarcerated in
Florence, Colorado. Counsel visited with him on one
occasion in order to introduce himself and become
generally familiar with the case. Over the
succeeding months, in which several motions,
including a motion for a new trial, were litigated
in the District Court, counsel corresponded
with his client, anticipating a second meeting
following the preliminary drafting of the appeal
brief and prior to the filing date.
5. That meeting was set for March 19th, 2003.
Prior to that meeting taking place, and on March
3rd, 2003, Special Administrative Measures
were imposed on Mr. Guerrero pursuant to 28 CFR
501.2, not for any misconduct or wrongdoing on his
part (he has been a model prisoner and teacher),
but allegedly for reasons of "national
security." He was removed from his cell
and placed in administrative segregation. Under this
designation access to his files and legal
correspondence was denied him, as was the
opportunity to make or receive telephone call and
correspondence, including to his attorney.
When counsel finally learned of Mr. Guerrero's
status on or about March 10th, counsel was not
permitted to speak to his client. Counsel was also
informed that no legal mail would be given his
client nor would his client be permitted to write
him. The remainder of that week counsel made
additional efforts to contact Mr. Guerrero to
no avail. Counsel's associate also repeatedly
attempted to see and speak to Mr. Guerrero
without success.
6. Finally, as a result of the co-operative
intervention of AUSA Caroline Heck Miller of the
United States Attorney's Office in Miami, Florida, I
was advised on or about March 14th, 2003, that I and
my associate would be able to meet with my Guerrero
on the prearranged date of March 19th, 2003.
However, he would remain under the same
classification, resulting in his continual and total
isolation , for reasons of national security that
could not be revealed. Mr. Guerrero had previously
served his pre-trial and post-trial time in the
general population without incident.
Immediately prior to the scheduled meeting I was
further advised by the prison institution that the
meeting would occur under the strictest measures for
attorney/client meetings: there would be no contact,
no direct communication (limited to a single
telephone to be shared by both counsel), no direct
passage of documents (through a guard intermediary)
and both counsel and client would be locked into a
space so small that it could only accommodate one
attorney. Spanish- speaking associate counsel had to
stand behind the undersigned in what amounted to a
slightly enlarged telephone booth. All appeals to
the prison authorities to ameliorate these
conditions were rejected.
7. Mr. Guerrero, who was never advised that his
attorney would be visiting, appeared stunned as he
entered the visiting cubicle, shackled in leg irons
and handcuffs. These were removed during the visit,
but had never previously been applied to him. The
corridors had been cleared as he was led to the
meeting. Mr. Guerrero sat quietly, apparently
non-comprehending, while counsel sought
modification of these conditions. Although we sat
with him for six hours, the objectives of the
meeting could hardly be achieved following Mr.
Guerrero's 16 days of isolation, separated from his
trial notes and correspondence. A principal
objective of the meeting was to review a 35 page
handwritten letter from him setting forth a series
of questions and answers which, in part, were
central to the drafting of the appeal.
Moreover, his living conditions, including the
screaming of disturbed fellow inmates in the
punishment tier, had deprived him of adequate sleep
and rest during the preceding two weeks, further
eroding his ability to focus on our work.
Realizing that, the prison staff offered a second
meeting the following day. However, the impending
blizzard in Colorado and the threatened closure of
the airport left us no choice but to leave.
8. To this day, March 26th, 2003, I have not heard
from Mr. Guerrero who remains in isolation and under
special restrictions. While AUSA. Miller has been
co-operative in attempting to restore him to general
population, assuring counsel of her best efforts in
that regard, almost daily, counsel has been unable
to engage in meaningful attorney/client
communications for nearly one month. Counsel cannot
responsibly file appellate papers without input and
review with his client.
9. Ms. Miller also arranged for counsel to visit
with co-defendant Gerardo Hernandez who was joined
with Mr. Guerrero in the Count alleging a conspiracy
to commit espionage. That visit, as previously
arranged, took place in Lompoc, California where Mr.
Hernandez was imprisoned. Mr. Hernandez had also
been subjected, since February 28, 2003, to Special
Administrative Measures, as had all five of the
appellants in this case. Undersigned counsel was not
Mr. Hernandez' attorney of record and had not
previously met with him. However, a full contact
visit was permitted, misleading counsel into the
belief that the same privileges would attend his
visit with his client several days later.
However, the meeting with Mr. Hernandez
was scarcely more productive. He had been held for
the previous two plus weeks in "The Box,"
a special punishment cell reserved for those who
violate prison regulations while in special housing.
"The Box" has no windows. A metal screen
mesh across the front blocks any view outside. A
sold metal door has a slot for a food tray to
be inserted. The cell is lighted 24 hours a
day by florescent lights, making it impossible to
distinguish day from night. All reading is
prohibited and there is no contact with any human
being. As a routine precaution Mr. Hernandez'
clothes and shoes were taken from him, leaving him
in his underwear. Counsel was his the first person
to have any meaningful contact with him in more than
two weeks. Under such circumstances, the
meeting did not serve its intended purpose.
10. Today counsel spoke by telephone with AUSA
Carolyn Heck Miller respecting this request for an
additional extension of time. She indicated no
objection to this application and has authorized me
to so represent on behalf of the United States
Government.
11. This request is made in good faith and not for
purpose of delay. WHEREFORE, Mr. Guerrero
respectfully requests that this Court grant him an
additional thirty-day extension of time in which to
file his initial brief.
Respectfully submitted,
Leonard I. Weinglass
Attorney for Appellant Guerrero
6 West 20th Street
New York City, New York 10011
212-807-8646
212-242-2120 (Fax)
|
--
Appeals
Court notified of obstacles to Five’s defense
ON March 26, Leonard
Weinglass, Antonio Guerrero’s lawyer filed a motion before the
Atlanta Appeals Court explaining the obstacles placed in his way
as a defense attorney to maintain contact with his client, who
has been in solitary confinement (the hole) since March 3,
according to the web page http://www.antiterroristas.cu
.
--
Condemnation
of further violations against Gerardo
RICARDO Alarcón,
president of the National Assembly of People’s Power,
yesterday condemned the worsening – without due cause or
justification – of human rights violations against the five
Cuban patriots currently imprisoned in the United States, ...
-- To
conceal the bad faith of the federal prosecution and Miami judge
OBSTRUCTING the
work of the defense in relation to the appeals process at the
Atlanta 11th Circuit Court, scheduled to begin on April 7;
building a wall of silence to balance a growing international
solidarity movement;...
|
